DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-18 and 21) in the reply filed on 20 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 & 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 March 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a light source control unit” in claim 1. Based on paragraph 0041 of the specification of the present application a light source control unit can be interpreted to be a part of a larger control program like a CPU or an equivalent thereof.
“an imaging unit” in claim 1. Based on paragraph 0024 of the specification of the present application a light source control unit can be interpreted to be a color camera or an equivalent thereof.
“an image generation unit” in claim 1. Based on paragraph 0041 of the specification of the present application an image generation unit can be interpreted to be a part of a larger control program like a CPU or an equivalent thereof.
“an information acquisition unit” in claim 1. Based on paragraph 0041 of the specification of the present application an information acquisition unit can be interpreted to be a part of a larger control program like a CPU or an equivalent thereof.
“a storage unit” in claim 8. Based on paragraph 0045 of the specification of the present application a storage unit can be interpreted to be a memory that stores operation programs for a CPU, like ROM, RAM or an equivalent thereof.
“a driving unit” in claim 12. Based on paragraph 0032 of the specification of the present application a driving unit can be interpreted to be a motor or an equivalent thereof.
“a rotational position sensing unit” in claim 12. Based on paragraph 0040 of the specification of the present application a rotational position sensing unit can be interpreted to be an encoder or an equivalent thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner Notes
Examiner wants to make of record the analysis of the plurality of elements associated with the control program including: the light source control unit, the image generation unit, the information acquisition unit, and the storage unit were analyzed for compliance under 35 USC § 101. Each of these components recite generic computer parts performing abstract idea. However, they are integrated into the system’s process and therefore overcome a 35 USC § 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US 20170241767 A1) in view of Morimoto, et. al. (US 20160282268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata teaches a geometry measurement apparatus for the acquisition of a plurality of images of an object to be measured (Abstract). Miyata teaches the apparatus comprises:
a light source configured to project patterns on an object (lighting the object at different positions) placed on the measuring surface (Fig. 1A; par. 0031) (at least one light source configured to be lit at different positions) wherein a geometry measurement system controls the projection patterns being emitted (Fig. 7; par. 0055) (a light source control unit configured to control lighting of the at least one light source)
the measuring surface having an embodiment of a turntable to rotate the object (Fig. 1A; par. 0031, 0084) (a rotation mechanism configured to rotate (an object)).
an imaging apparatus 2 configured to generate a plurality of images each with a different projection patterns (Fig. 1A; par. 0031, 0084) (an imaging unit configured to acquire a plurality of individual images by shooting (the chip) located, by being rotated by the rotation mechanism, in an illuminated area illuminated by the lighting of the at least one light source shooting (the chip) at each of the different positions at different times respectively).
a geometry measurement apparatus 3 configured to collect the plurality of images captures S13-S14, compare the value of the images to a reference value to determine the difference S15-S16, and quantify the value of the pixels to identify S17-S20 the geometry of the object based on a luminescence value of each pixel from the plurality of captured images (Fig. 1A, 6, 7; par. 0031, 0034) (an information acquisition unit configured to acquire target object information on a state of the (object) based on the analysis image) (wherein a brightness value of each pixel in the analysis image is calculated using brightness values of pixels at a same position among the plurality of individual images).
Miyata is silent to the object specifically being a chip loaded with a storage container for storing a test object.
Morimoto teaches a data processing and optical detection apparatus for analysis collected light data within a detection area (Abstract). Morimoto teaches the optical detection apparatus comprises a light source to illuminate a microchip, a data processing apparatus, and a data determination portion (par. 0044). Morimoto teaches a microchip M can hold any number of biological or chemical samples within the space formed by wells W1, W2, W3 (Fig. 2A, 2B; par. 0048) (a chip loaded with a storage container for storing a test object). The target objecting being a microchip configured to have multiple wells allows for multiple samples to be analyzed within a single device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the rotating object of Miyata to be a microchip with at least one area to hold a sample as taught by Morimoto. One would be motivated to make the substitution because it would allow for analysis of multiple samples, and this simple substitution of one known element (a generic target object) for another (a microchip with multiple sample wells) would obtain predictable results (a measurement system for imagining multiple samples). MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, modified Miyata as described in claim 1 above teaches a singular projection apparatus 1 to project different patterns to light the rotating object at different angles (Miyata, Fig. 1).
Modified Miyata is silent to the light source comprises a plurality of light sources, and the light source control unit lights the plurality of light sources one at each of the different positions at different times respectively.
Miyata teaches an embodiment of the system that utilizes a plurality of projection apparatuses 1 that are installed at different positions for capturing different angles (par. 0084) (the light source comprises a plurality of light sources, and the light source control unit lights the plurality of light sources one at each of the different positions at different times respectively). Miyata teaches the addition of multiple projection apparatuses allows for additional information through pixel value to be captured because additional angles and brightness values are captured by the different angles from the plurality of projection apparatuses (par. 0084).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the singular projection apparatus of Miyata to instead be a plurality of projection apparatus as taught by Miyata. One would be motivated to make this modification because it allows the camera to capture more illumination angles to gather more data during the image capturing process to improve geometry identification, and this motivation would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the single projection apparatus to a plurality of projection apparatuses,, providing likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, modified Miyata teaches wherein each pixel is assigned a code value corresponding to a brightness value (in regard to a reference value) and a position coordinate corresponding to a position of the captured images of the object (Miyata, Fig. 4-5; par. 0043-0047, 0051-0052) (each pixel in the analysis image has a brightness value within an average brightness range permissible for an average brightness of the pixels at the same position among the plurality of individual images).
Regarding claim 4, modified Miyata teaches the code values corresponding to a coordinate on an object and a luminescence value are processed by the geometry measurement apparatus. Once the images are captured 321, quantization part 322 compares the luminescence value of each pixel of each image to a predetermined reference value (average brightness) to determine if the average luminescence of the same pixel averaged over the plurality of pictures is bright enough to quantify as a 1 or 0 in the process of identifying the object geometry (Miyata, Fig. 5-6; par. 0043-0053, 0059). While Miyata does not specifically teach a standard deviation of brightness value, because the value of the plurality of images is ultimately binarized to a 1 or 0 in regard to a reference value, the averaged value of the same pixel of the plurality of images needs to have a predetermined cut off limit to determine if the binarized value will be a 1 or 0 (see Fig. 9A-C, par. 0059-0061) (when a distribution of the brightness values of the pixels at the same position among the plurality of individual images is normalized, the average brightness range is a range of brightness values of n-σ or more but n+σ or less, where n is an average brightness value and σ is a standard deviation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Miyata teaches the object geometry identification 324 is based on the quantization values of the pixels from quantization part 322 and a specific set of pixel the selection part 323 selects that will depict the geometry of the object (Miyata, Fig. 6; par. 0049-0053, 0062-0064) (the information acquisition unit acquires the target object information based on the brightness values of pixels on a previously set one line in the analysis image).
Regarding claim 6, modified Miyata in view of Morimoto teaches a microchip M can hold any number of biological or chemical samples within wells W1, W2, W3 (Morimoto, Fig. 2A, 2B; par. 0048) (with the test object stored in the storage container); the opposite it also true, the wells within the microchip of Morimoto can also be analyzed when no sample is present in the well (without the test object stored in the storage container). Modified Miyata further teaches identifying geometry can be performed on each condition of the chip (with and without the sample) as seen through the steps in Fig. 7 (Miyata) to identify and depict the geometry of each condition of the chip (the analysis image that the image generation unit generates with the test object stored in the storage container is a first analysis image) (the analysis image that the image generation unit generates without the test object stored in the storage container is a second analysis image).
Modified Miyata further teaches an embodiment wherein images can be compared after changing conditions. Miyata teaches the system can take a plurality of images both before and after changing conditions each in its own group, and each group undergoes the same identification process as described above, to create an identifying geometry of the object. Differences between to identified geometries can be compared on a pixel by pixel basis (Miyata, par. 0077-0080) (the information acquisition unit acquires the target object information based on differences of the brightness values of the pixels at same positions between the first and second analysis image).
Regarding claim 7, modified Miyata teaches the geometry measurement system can create groups of images wherein each group a geometry of the object is determined both before and after changing a condition (Miyata, par. 0077-0080) (the image generation unit generates the first analysis image based on the plurality of first individual images and generates the second analysis image based on the plurality of second individual images). Modified Miyata teaches the projection pattern changing as the change of condition and does not explicitly disclose rotation as a change. However, Miyata teaches what is measured is the change in how the projection pattern is different from the first and second group (Miyata, par. 0077-0080). Miyata further teaches the turntable serves to allow for the captured projection patterns to be different from image to image due to rotation (Miyata, par. 0084). Therefore, the device and control parts of modified Miyata is fully capable of collecting images both before and after rotation (before the chip loaded with the storage container storing the test object is rotated by the rotation mechanism, the imaging unit shoots the chip with the light source lit at each of the different positions at different times respectively to acquire a plurality of first individual images) (after the chip has been rotated by the rotation mechanism until the test object flows from the storage container into the chip, the imaging unit shoots the chip with the light source lit at each of the different positions at different times respectively to acquire a plurality of second individual images).
Regarding claim 8, modified Miyata teaches a memory part 31 of the control part 3 to store information like the coordinates of the pixels on captures images (Miyata, Fig. 6; par. 0048-0049) (a storage unit configured to previously store the second analysis images). Modified Miyata teaches each pixel in each image has an assigned coordinate and therefore the pixels of the same coordinate can be compared at each condition (Miyata, par. 0077-0080) (the information acquisition unit acquires the target object information based on differences of the brightness values of the pixels at the same positions between the first analysis image and the second analysis image stored in the storage unit).
Regarding claim 9, modified Miyata teaches the object geometry identification 324 is based on the quantization values of the pixels from quantization part 322 and a specific set of pixel the selection part 323 selects that will depict the geometry of the object (Miyata, Fig. 6; par. 0049-0053, 0062-0064). Miyata further teaches that geometry of the object is further determined by calculating the heights of each pixel based on their x, y coordinates (Miyata, par. 0064-0065). While Miyata does not specifically disclose that a first and second comparative geometry identifications is performed by the control part 3, Miyata does teach when comparing the two geometry identifications, the same process for each individual image undergoes the same process when images are captured for geometry identification with no comparative second image (Miyata, par. 0077). Therefore, when generating a first and second comparative geometry identification, each individual geometry goes through the same coordinate pixel-based analysis (in each of the first and second analysis images, at a position of each pixel on a previously set one line, the information acquisition unit calculates a width-direction average value by averaging brightness values among a plurality of pixels arrayed in a width direction perpendicular to the one line within a particular region including the one line and a plurality of lines parallel thereto, the information acquisition unit acquiring the target object information based on differences of width-direction average values between the first and second analysis images).
Regarding claim 10, modified Miyata teaches the luminescence of the pixels (each pixel from each captured image has an associated coordinate) is determined based on a predetermined threshold value, wherein positional information is associated and stored with a luminescence value (Miyata, par. 0060-0061, 0070). The selection part 323 of the control program 3 selects pixel(s) best to be used to identify object geometry based on the average value of the pixel based on a threshold value wherein the selection can be above, below, or at a threshold value (Miyata, par. 0064-0065, 0070) (the information acquisition unit extracts, within a large range defined based on a first threshold value higher than a reference value, a small range defined based on a second threshold value lower than the reference value, the information acquisition unit acquiring the target object information based on the differences of the width-direction average values in the small range). While Miyata does not specifically disclose that a first and second comparative geometry identifications is performed by the control part 3, Miyata does teach when comparing the two geometry identifications, the same process for each individual image undergoes the same process when images are captured for geometry identification with no comparative second image (Miyata, par. 0077). Therefore, when generating a first and second comparative geometry identification, each individual geometry goes through the same coordinate pixel-based analysis as described by the above threshold selection (in a distribution, on the one line, of the differences of the width-direction average values between the first and second analysis images as obtained with respect to a particular chip as the chip).
Regarding claim 18, modified Miyata teaches wherein each pixel is assigned a code value corresponding to a brightness value (in regard to a reference value) and a position coordinate corresponding to a position of the captured images of the object (Miyata, Fig. 4-5; par. 0043-0047) (a brightness value of each pixel in the analysis image is an average brightness value resulting from averaging brightness values of the pixels at the same positions among the plurality of individual images).
Regarding claim 21, Miyata teaches a geometry measurement apparatus for the acquisition of a plurality of images of an object to be measured (Abstract). Miyata teaches the apparatus comprises:
a light source or plurality of light sources configured to project patterns on an object (lighting the object at different positions) placed on the measuring surface (Fig. 1A; par. 0031, 0084) (a plurality of light sources configured to be lit at different positions) wherein a geometry measurement system controls the projection patterns being emitted (Fig. 7; par. 0055) (a light source control unit configured to control lighting of the plurality of light sources)
the measuring surface having an embodiment of a turntable to rotate the object (Fig. 1A; par. 0031, 0084) (a rotation mechanism configured to rotate (an object)).
an imaging apparatus 2 configured to generate a plurality of images each with a different projection patterns (Fig. 1A; par. 0031, 0084) (an imaging unit configured to acquire an analysis image by shooting (the chip) located, by being rotated by the rotation mechanism, in an illuminated area illuminated by simultaneous lighting of the plurality of light sources).
a geometry measurement apparatus 3 configured to collect the plurality of images captures S13-S14, compare the value of the images to a reference value to determine the difference S15-S16, and quantify the value of the pixels to identify S17-S20 the geometry of the object based on a luminescence value of each pixel from the plurality of captured images (Fig. 1A, 6, 7; par. 0031, 0034) (an information acquisition unit configured to acquire target object information on a state of the (object) based on the analysis image).
Miyata is silent to the object specifically being a chip loaded with a storage container for storing a test object.
Morimoto teaches a data processing and optical detection apparatus for analysis collected light data within a detection area (Abstract). Morimoto teaches the optical detection apparatus comprises a light source to illuminate a target object, a data processing apparatus, and a data determination portion (par. 0044). Morimoto teaches the target object can be any number of biological or chemical targets within samples stored in wells W1, W2, W3 within a microchip M (Fig. 2A, 2B; par. 0048) (a chip loaded with a storage container for storing a test object). The target objecting being a microchip configured to have multiple wells allows for multiple samples to be analyzed within a single device. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the rotating object of Miyata to be a microchip with at least one area to hold a sample as taught by Morimoto. One would be motivated to make the substitution because it would allow for analysis of multiple samples, and this simple substitution of one known element (a generic target object) for another (a microchip with multiple sample wells) would obtain predictable results (a measurement system for imagining multiple samples).MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US 20170241767 A1) in view of Morimoto, et. al. (US 20160282268 A1) as applied to claims 10 and 1 (respectively) above, and further in view of Sievert, et. al. (WO 2019174884 A1; citations made with respect to attached copy).
Regarding claim 11, modified Miyata teaches the limitations as applied to claim 10 (see above).
Modified Miyata is silent to wherein the chip is affixed with a label bearing identification information for identifying a testing item with respect to the test object, the imaging unit previously shoot the label to acquire the identification information, and the information acquisition unit recognizes the type of chip based on the identification information read by the imaging unit.
Sievert teaches a method and system for detecting a sample in a sample container (Abstract). Sievert teaches the detecting system comprises (Fig. 1) a label 15 attached to the sample container 10 for identification purposes (Fig. 1; pg. 22, par. 06-09 (S25-S28), pg. 26, par. 04) (the chip is affixed with a label bearing identification information for identifying a testing item with respect to the test object). Sievert teaches the camera captures images of the sample label 15 along with the container 10 itself (pg. 35, par. 04-pg. 36, 03) (the imaging unit previously shoot the label to acquire the identification information). Sievert teaches the label 15 comprises information regarding the sample and the sample container itself like cap orientation (pg. 30, par. 03) (the information acquisition unit recognizes the type of chip based on the identification information read by the imaging unit). Sievert teaches the addition of a label on the container that is captured by the camera during the image capture process can improve overall accuracy of the method used by the system (pg. 3, par. 02).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the object/chip imaging system of modified Miyata to further include a label that can be processed by the imaging system as taught by Sievert because doing so would improve overall accuracy of the system. Because both systems rotate an illuminated object and gather a plurality of pictures in order to gather data about the state of the object. One would be motivated to combine the base system with a labeling and label reading process because both systems rotate an illuminated object and gather a plurality of pictures in order to gather data about the state of the object, and this combination would yield predictable results (improving system accuracy). MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Miyata teaches a turntable that is configured to turn while the projection apparatus 1 projects patterns on the object and the imaging apparatus 2 generates a plurality of images (Miyata, par. 0084) (the imaging unit acquires the plurality of individual images by shooting part of the chip at each of different rotation positions of the chip).
Miyata teaches the geometry measurement system 3 (the image generation unit) captures images as patterns are projected on the rotating object (Miyata, Fig. 7, par. 0084) (acquires the analysis images based on the plurality of individual images at each of the different rotation positions of the chip) and the images are calculated based on a reference value using the coordinate pixel system described above to ultimately generate the geometry of the object (Miyata, Fig. 6-7) (generates a composite analysis image by overlaying together the plurality of analysis images with reference to a same position on the chip based on the rotation position sensed by the rotational position sensing unit). Miyata teaches the object geometry identification 324 is based on the quantization values of the pixels from quantization part 322 and a specific set of pixel the selection part 323 selects that will depict the geometry of the object (Miyata, Fig. 6; par. 0049-0053, 0062-0064) (the information acquisition unit acquires the target object information based on the composite analysis image).
Modified Miyata is silent to the rotation mechanisms (turntable) including: a driving unit configured to generate a driving force for rotating the chip; and a rotational position sensing unit configured to sense a rotation position of the driving unit.
Sievert teaches a method and system for detecting a sample in a sample container (Abstract). Sievert teaches the detecting system comprises (Fig. 1) a motion generator system 30 to rotate a container 10 that can hold a sample (pg. 27, par. 02-03) (a rotation mechanism). Sievert teaches the motion generator system comprises a motor to generate the motion (pg. 9, par. 03) (a driving unit configured to generate a driving force for rotating the chip). Sievert further teaches an advantageous orientation detection method wherein the program rotates the object up to 360° to determine which angle(s) product the best images (pg. 9, par. 02-04) (a rotational position sensing unit configured to sense a rotation position of the driving unit). Sievert teaches the rotational control of the object down to a specific degree of rotation allows for the system to gather data from a plurality of images that will best exemplify the actual object (pg. 9, par. 02-04).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rotation mechanism of modified Miyata to include a driving unit with a sensing unit to determine rotational position as taught by Sievert. One would be motivated to make this modification because it allows to system to collect image data to best determine the actual state of the object being measured, and this motivation would have led on or ordinary skill to modify the rotation mechanism to include a driving and sensing unit, , providing likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP(I)(G).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US 20170241767 A1) in view of Morimoto, et. al. (US 20160282268 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horike (US 20070003433 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Miyata in view of Morimoto teaches an object being analyzed can be a microchip M that can hold any number of biological or chemical samples within wells W1, W2, W3 (the empty space of the well being the storage container and the walls in the microchip forming the well is the container compartment) (Morimoto, Fig. 2A, 2B; par. 0048) (a container compartment in which the storage container is loaded). While not explicitly stated, Morimoto teaches the wells of the microchip M are analyzed through a detection area D on the microchip M (Morimoto, Fig. 3; par. 0051). Because light must pass through detection area D to interact with the wells, the microchip material must be an optically transparent material to act as a window for the detection light (a window through which to detect the test object).
Modified Miyata teaches the geometry measurement system can create groups of images wherein each group a geometry of the object is determined both before and after changing a condition, in other words a set of images is taken, time passes during which a condition changes, then a second set of images is taken (Miyata, par. 0077-0080) (the imaging unit acquires the plurality of individual images in each of a first period and a second period temporally later than the first period). Miyata teaches the turntable serves to allow for the captured projection patterns to be different from image to image due to rotation (Miyata, par. 0084). Therefore, the device and control parts of modified Miyata is fully capable of collecting images both before and after rotation (in the first period, the imaging unit acquires the plurality of individual images by shooting the container compartment of the chip located in the illuminated area by the rotation mechanism, and in the second period, the imaging unit acquires the plurality of individual images by shooting the window of the chip located in the illuminated area by the rotation mechanism).
Modified Miyata is silent to the window of the chip being located in a flow passage through which, when the chip is rotated by the rotation mechanism, part of the test object in the storage container other than a necessary amount thereof flows as waste liquid.
Horike teaches a microfluidic chip that moves a sample by rotation of the chip (Abstract). Horike teaches the chip as a larger, well-like opening serving as an inlet 7a and is fluidically connected to a plurality of channels, reservoirs, and an outlet (Fig. 1A; par. 0136) (the window being located in a flow passage). Horike teaches upon rotation, fluid flows to other parts of the chip for analysis and excess sample specifically flows to a waste reservoir 13(Fig. 1A, par. 0137-0138) (when the chip is rotated by the rotation mechanism, part of the test object in the storage container other than a necessary amount thereof flows as waste liquid). Horike teaches providing channels and different reservoirs within the microchip allow for the sample fluid to be process such as separation in an efficient and convenient manner (par. 0004-0005).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microchip of modified Miyata in view of Morimoto to include channels and reservoirs for sample processing including a waste channel as taught by Horike. One would be motivated to make this modification because it allows the sample to undergo processing steps within the microchip while being rotated, and this motivation would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the microchip to additionally have channels and reservoirs for the sample fluid, providing likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 14, modified Miyata teaches the geometry measurement system can create groups of images wherein each group a geometry of the object is determined both before and after changing a condition (Miyata, par. 0077-0080) (in each of the first and second periods, the image generation unit generates the analysis image based on the plurality of individual images acquired). Miyata teaches a memory part 31 of the control part 3 to store information like the coordinates of the pixels on captures images (Miyata, Fig. 6; par. 0048-0049). Modified Miyata teaches each pixel in each image has an assigned coordinate and therefore the pixels of the same coordinate can be compared at each condition (Miyata, par. 0077-0080). While Miyata does not specifically disclose that a first and second comparative geometry identifications is performed by the control part 3, Miyata does teach when comparing the two geometry identifications, the same process for each individual image undergoes the same process when images are captured for geometry identification with no comparative second image (Miyata, par. 0077). Therefore, when generating a first and second comparative geometry identification, each individual geometry goes through the same coordinate pixel-based analysis in order to create two geometry identifications separated by a period of time (in each of the first and second periods, the information acquisition unit acquires the target object information based on the analysis image generated, the information acquisition unit comprehensively judging the state of the test object or the state of the storage container based on two sets of the target object information acquired).
Regarding claim 16, modified Miyata teaches a plurality of images are taken both before and after rotating the object as established in claim 13. Modified Miyata in view of Morimoto teaches the microchip has a window/transparent structure for the sample as established in claim 13. Finally modified Miyata in view of Horike teaches sample fluid can be upon rotation as established in claim 13.
Modified Miyata teaches the geometry measurement system can create groups from the plurality of images wherein each group a geometry of the object is determined both before and after changing a condition (rotation) (Miyata, par. 0077-0080).
(in the second period, the imaging unit acquires the plurality of individual images as first window-part individual images by shooting the window before the chip is rotated until the test object reaches the window and acquires the plurality of individual images as second window-part individual images by shooting the window after the chip has been rotated until the test object reaches the window) (the image generation unit generates as the analysis image a first window-part analysis image based on the plurality of first window-part individual images and generates as the analysis image a second window-part analysis image based on the plurality of second window-part individual images). Modified Miyata teaches a memory part 31 of the control part 3 to store information like the coordinates of the pixels on captures images (Miyata, Fig. 6; par. 0048-0049). Modified Miyata teaches each pixel in each image has an assigned coordinate and therefore the pixels of the same coordinate can be compared at each condition (Miyata, par. 0077-0080) (the information acquisition unit judges the state of the test object based on a distribution of differences of brightness values of the pixels at the same positions between the first and second window-part analysis images).
Claim 15 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata (US 20170241767 A1) in view of Morimoto, et. al. (US 20160282268 A1) and Horike (US 20070003433 A1) as applied to claim 14 and 13 (respectively) above, and further in view of Sievert, et. al. (WO 2019174884 A1; citations made with respect to attached copy).
Regarding claim 15, modified Miyata teaches the limitation as applied to claim 14 (see above).
Modified Miyata is silent to wherein based on the two sets of the target object information, the information acquisition unit judges whether a necessary amount of the test object is stored in the storage container.
Sievert teaches a method and system for detecting a sample in a sample container (Abstract). Sievert teaches one such sample that can be held in the container 10 can be a liquid. Sievert teaches liquid can be hard to detect due to their different physical properties including being transparent. Therefore, the combination of the rotation and capturing multiple images and evaluating the value of each pixel in the images allows for the device to determine if and how much of a sample is present (pg. 48, par. 02-pg. 49, par. 01; pg. 50, par. 03) (based on the two sets of the target object information, the information acquisition unit judges whether a necessary amount of the test object is stored in the storage container). Sievert teaches this method for analyzing for sample volume and presence is useful for samples with difficult to measure physical attributes (pg. 50, par. 03).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify geometry identification (the target object information) of modified Miyata to be the detection for the presence of a sample as taught by Sievert. One would be motivated to make this modification because it allows the system to quantify usually hard to detect samples like liquids, and this motivation would have led to one of ordinary skill to modify the object information/identification to detect the presence of a sample, providing likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 17, modified Miyata teaches the limitations as applied to claim 13 (see above).
Modified Miyata is silent to wherein in each of the first and second periods, the information acquisition unit extracts an image edge from the plurality of individual images acquired, the information acquisition unit checking for a fault based on displacement of the extracted edge.
Sievert teaches a method and system for detecting a sample in a sample container (Abstract). Sievert teaches one such piece of information extracted from the images is the location/placement and size of a container 10 cap 11 and corresponding opening. Sievert teaches they system can take lateral edge measurements to determine an estimated diameter/geometry of the cap based on the plurality of images in order to know the location and size of the cap based on its edges (pg. 34, par. 03-pg. 35, par. 01) (in each of the first and second periods, the information acquisition unit extracts an image edge from the plurality of individual images acquired, the information acquisition unit checking for a fault based on displacement of the extracted edge). Sievert teaches the container 10 and cap 11 can be in a plurality of different orientations (due to rotation) and the container and cap may not have the exact same positioning in each image and therefore estimating the edges gives and estimated boundary to give the location of the cap (pg. 35, par. 02).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify identified geometry (extracted image) of modified Miyata to use the edges of the container or parts of the container (cap) to create an estimated boundary as taught by Sievert. One would be motivated to make this modification because it allows the system to quantify usually hard to detect samples like liquids, and this motivation would have led to one of ordinary skill to modify extracted image geometry to include edge data , providing likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON T HERBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights